Posted on 04/13/2012 6:53:58 PM PDT by mek1959
I’m not exactly sure where you get the notion that it was until “death do us part” from the Founders? Especially when you read the NY, Rhode Island and Virginia ratification documents. It’s quite clear that in their minds, if the new “general government” exceeded it’s authority, they intended to resume governance to themselves. Also, VERY few of the Ratifiers would have ever ratified the new federal government had they not understood that the States we’re sovereign and could withdraw from the Union if they so thought.
Lincoln’s arguments in his 1st Inaugural Address, if that’s what you are using for you source material, are complete balderdash. This was certainly NOT a perpetual Union and the only reason it was held together in 1860 was for the unconstitutional notion of “preserving the Union” at the cost of slaughtering 600,000 fellow citizens. Is that what you mean by “til death do us part?” Would you be willing to shoot your fellow citizens in say Texas if they decide to go their own way? This is very serious talk folks, not some Smithsonian movie about our history.
The answer to your question "Would you be willing to shoot your fellow citizens in say Texas if they decide to go their own way?" is unfortunately yes for far too many, even many Freepers would answer yes. As for me, I would make a bee-line for Texas, not to invade, to join the Texas Republic as a citizen/soldier. If they would have me.
Has Neil lived in Alberta in a long time? Pretty sure he’s in Norcal somewhere, probably in the Santa Cruz mountains.
Hmmm, these guys would confirm that.
http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/neil-youngs-house/
I’m not sure I agree...times are different now. We can connect in ways we couldn’t just 10 years ago. Having the discussion, without the fear of being called a racist is all I and many others are advocating. Thanks for your response and I’d be joining you was well.
Sadly, having been on FR for years now, I have to agree with you that many Freepers, under Lincolnian thinking would be willing to shoot their fellow citizens to “preserve the Union.”
Fixed it fer ya, chuamp.
Give Zero another 4 to tighten the screws?
He probably does live in California. I just know he’s a native Canadian. Actually, I like a lot of his stuff, but he is definitely a lefty.
A close friend of mine has been there; it’s a long story. I’m a pretty big fan of his music, have been for a long time.
While Neil has some tendencies we would call Leftist, I don’t think he is so easily categorized politically. He is way too much marching to the beat of his own drummer. And a conservative can generally find a fair amount of common ground with a strong individualist.
>I do think there are many conservatives that are non-monogamous.
Reproductive strategies work that way. Everyone is not totally black or white. It is only as you zoom back, you find two main groups, each of which has those behaviors congregating around them. Conservatism/monogamy, and Liberalism/promiscuity definitely align, from a zoomed out perspective.
>which results from biological needs of humans having the
>longest childhood of any species (again due to our need to
>learn).
We take longer to mature, as we are a highly K-selected species, which r-type have evolved to parasitize. K-selection occurs because limited resources force competition on a population. Those who compete survive. Those who take the time to produce highly competitive children (in part by producing children that develop a myriad of capabilities over many years beofre entering the competition), will succeed under this scheme.
>the point is some people might offload this responsablity
>to the woman while going on to spread their seed to as
>many other women as possable.
Studies indicate that this works as a reproductive strategy, until group competition enters the picture. There some individuals form a group where the one alpha male gets to impregnate all the females. Others form a group where everyone competes to take a single mate, who they then bond with monogamously, while exhibiting an aversion to cuckolding the mates of peers.
When the two groups meet, the monogamous group ends up being more loyal and functional, as there is greater loyalty and selflessness among the members, and less jealousy and bitterness. As a result, m
monogamy finds itself strongly favored in group competition in a K-selected environment, as it fosters greater loyalty to group, and therefore greater group functionality.
>We are not having children or enough children to even keep
>going, and the leftist portions of our population are at
>the sphere head of this extradition.
You have to separate the r-type, Liberal psychology into it’s components. Currently, there is a variation among them. Some are intelligent, responsible, and capable of controlling their behavior so some degree. They tend to make use of the new selective stress of birth control, and yes, they are diminishing in relative numbers in the presence of this new selective stress.
Others are not so intelligent, not so responsible, and not so capable of controlling their behaviors. They don’t use birth control, and as a result, they are multiplying quite rapidly in poorer areas, using the age old r-strategy of promiscuity, early age at first intercourse, and single parenting.
As a result, birth control is culling the leftist population for a much crazier, less productive, more fecund, more government-dependent population.
>Our civilization is quite litterly dying.
It’s like the ocean. Kill an apex predator, and reefs will appear to be dying, as they will be fairly screwed up for a while as prey species down teh food chain overpopulate, and then eradicate the resources they need to survive. But really the reefs are adapting to the change, and eventually, the inhabitants will find a new balance of reproductive strategies, and be just fine.
In our population, among K-types (Conservatives) overall, some are not reproducing fast enough, probably due to the disruption in things produced by birth control. That is dragging replacement rates down. But within the K-type population are some (Sarah Palin comes to mind) who are reproducing well, regardless. Eventually, those types, who actively want kids, and have a good number of them, will be the de facto form of that population, and reproductive rates among K-types will climb back up as Darwin favors those who reproduce, and eliminates those who do not. I would expect Conservatism to place an even increased emphasis on the importance of children and family as this selection occurs.
Among r-types, there will be a small sub-population of high intellects who have a child or two, and an increasingly massive sub-population of those lower intellects which consume enormous welfare, and produce single mothers with nine kids.
As a result, Conservatives can be expected to become even more Conservative in some regards, while the Liberal movement will become even more unproductive, and more aggressively desirous of free stuff from government, taken from other citizens.
Of course, the moment there are not enough resources for K-types to support themselves and their families, as well as the welfare queens, Darwin will then perform a large scale alteration of the population’s composition, favoring K-type, monogamous, decent, loyal to country Conservatism.
Conservatism will always win, unless some alien species came down, and promised us as much free stuff as we want, forever.
Given the Debt Bomb set to go off any time now and end the free-stuff-party, I’m thinking we will win.
I woulden’t shoot a Texan for going their own way as long as they left me alone. I am in compete agreement with you on the nature of our union. Logically this is the only way a union of free self-governing people can possibly exist.
Any form of forced & unconditional union always spells abuse and enslavement of the people who are invariably made subjects under it. The whole idea that such a thing could be legitimacy made to exist was an idea that was supposedly set aside in the American revolution. Lincoln’s Resurrection many of King George’s old arguments was the ultimate betrayal of the American revolution. The fact that his forces won only serves to demonstrate a weakness in the federation formed predisposing it towards empire.
How we overcome that weakness is anther question that will no doubt take much thought, preparation, & experience.
I am inclined to believe your hypothesis to be plausible at this point, although i have not the resources nor the time at this particular point in time to fully evaluate it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.